The concept is so interesting. That webpage is wonderful. You deserve a star.

I don't have much to add here but I just wanted to say that that was an absolutely brilliant find. Thanks for the fine reading material!

This may be a surprise to many but when it comes to machines of war anything goes including tanks. Very informative and thanks for the information. Rik Riley

Great info.

For practical purposes, I would have to say these mammoth tanks would be a waste. At first, they would be intimidating. But once the enemy gets over the shock, its game over for these massive tanks. After all, bigger on the battlefield doesn't mean better. But it guarantees that you are a bigger and easier to hit target.

That's probably why two legged tanks, like Mechwarrior, would not be practical. They're big and tall. Expensive to make. And probably the first thing everyone shoots at in a combat situation. Plus, the legs make them so vulnerable.

BTW, you get a star for a great read.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by guppy]

all other problems aside - the development and deployment of such a monster could not be kept secret

now i cannot claim to know how WWII allied commanders would have responded

but - ` if i ran the zoo ` - i would aquire 6" and 8"" naval AP shells from cruiser armnents - and determine how to safley fire them from existing 6" and 8" terrestrial howitzers - ie correct powder charge - etc etc

when the ` land cruizer ratte ` rolled into action - it would be come under barrage fire

from both direct fire tubes - in pre prepared positions [ it would be a lot easer and faster to dig concealed firing positions in the expected line of advance than for ratte to take evassive action ]

and plunging fire from distant batteries

and comparing the stated armour values of ratte with the penetration figures for naval AP shells - i predict ratte would not survive the first hit

This was great find. I enjoyed reading the site and learned some new and interesting information. Thanks,

If these machines were capable of AA and had a batallion of AA vehicles and weapons traveling with them then they'd be viewed as quite the disparaging land fleet, dominating all other terrestrial combat vehicles and capabilities at the time of implimentation. Definitely astonishing, like a naval fleet with wheels.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Great find

A couple of thoughts:

1)In todays battlefield it would be a sitting duck. A SDB could take out the turret with eash and then you just have an giant APC.

But for WWII it may have had been more practical given the weapons of the time.

It would not be very usefull against a mobile force, but against prepared positions like the Magiont line it would be quite aforce.

Its unlikely that that it would go anywhere without a 'Escort" like capital ships have. Some Panzers, AA, ground troops etc. Any kill would have to be a lucky drop from a CAS aircraft or close and dirty kill but the escorts would make it tough.

The other aspect people tend to forget is the terror value of such a weapon. the giant Krupps built cannon that shelled Paris in WWI did little real damage in terms of military, but cause alot of terror. That in and of itself had value in the WWII era. Imagine yourself manning a fixed line watching your bazoka rounds bounce off this monster. Are you going to hold position or bug out?

Originally posted by FredT
Great find

A couple of thoughts:

1)In todays battlefield it would be a sitting duck. A SDB could take out the turret with eash and then you just have an giant APC.

Why get fancy? An Abrams, Challenger, or LeClerc could ventilate the Ratte like a sieve if it showed up on the modern battlefield. I'm not even sure that the Ratte would have a range advantage. It might carry 280mm guns, but it doesn't seem to carry the fire control system to fire them at anything beyond open-sight range (I can't seem to find a range-finder or director anywhere).

But for WWII it may have had been more practical given the weapons of the time.

It would not be very usefull against a mobile force, but against prepared positions like the Magiont line it would be quite aforce.

It would even have problems against decent fixed fortifications. Given its size and expense, it's the obvious first target for just about any and everything that will bear. Given its limited ammunition supply (even the naval versions of those guns had ~100 rounds / gun, and the Ratte lacks their multi-deck magazine spaces, so it probably carries considerably less), the Ratte is going to beat the absolute goose-grease out of a small number of targets before shooting its magazines dry, and having to retire under fire.

Its unlikely that that it would go anywhere without a 'Escort" like capital ships have. Some Panzers, AA, ground troops etc. Any kill would have to be a lucky drop from a CAS aircraft or close and dirty kill but the escorts would make it tough.

Naval dive bomber crews were surprisingly accurate, with practice...and their targets tended to be moving a lot faster, have at least as many AA guns escorting them, and a lot more AA guns mounted on them. I'd be willing to lay good money on a USN dive-bombing squadron scoring at least a couple of hits (1943 or later), or an IJN squadron scoring several (up until 1943, assuming Japan and Germany were at odds). If you aren't willing to call in the Navy and their specialist dive bomber crews, I'm sure that there would be plenty of P-47 pilots willing to demonstrate proficiency.

The other aspect people tend to forget is the terror value of such a weapon. the giant Krupps built cannon that shelled Paris in WWI did little real damage in terms of military, but cause alot of terror. That in and of itself had value in the WWII era. Imagine yourself manning a fixed line watching your bazoka rounds bounce off this monster. Are you going to hold position or bug out?

From what I've heard, bazooka crewmen were used to seeing their rounds bounce.
The terror from the Paris Gun (and its World War II cousins, the V-1 and V-2) was a product of the inability to reply to or counter the weapon, more than a product of the weapon's damage. In the case of the Ratte, there's no lack of ways to reply to it directly (indirect-fire artillery), or counter it (bombing comes to mind). It would most assuredly be a shock, but it would probably cause more casualties among the Allied forces after its defeat than before. Can you imagine the bloodbath that's going to break out between the Americans (who want to ship the hulk back to Aberdeen for display), the Russians (who will want it for THEIR Great Patriotic War Museum), and the folks from Bovington? Ewww...even by Rugby standards, that's gonna be ugly!